Transcribing Records

Jellybaby1

Am typing up records and typically there are a lot of misspellings. I have transcribed exactly as written without any additions or corrections. However, I noticed on a genealogy blog, possibly Claire Santry's, can't remember, they typed up the records exactly as written and then added the correction in squared brackets. Is this the way to do it? I'm half way through and it means going back over a few hundred entries but I suppose it has to be done. Feeling so silly now.

shanew

I think a transcription should be just that .. type what you can see, just as you've done.

Depending on how the data is to be used, and who is going to use it, adding an interpretation or 'correct' spelling in some sort of delimiters might be a good idea. Could help with searches etc

Is this part of a larger transcription project or for your own use ?


Shane

Jellybaby1

Its a larger project. For instance say a surname was handwritten as "Burns", I probably should enter "Burns [Byrnes]". Is that what you mean?

shanew

I'd check with whoever is leading the project - they might have standard way of doing this that you should fit in with




S.

Jellybaby1

Unfortunately I'm it, I came up with the idea and made the suggestion, and "yeah, sure, away you go" was the reply! I felt Boards would be the place for advice unless anyone can suggest otherwise. Thanks for your input.

shanew

Then I'd go with the alternate names in square brackets... good way to indicate the alternative interpretations, and also could be used as part of a search if the data ends up on a database.

I'm not sure I'd include an alternative for something like Burns/Byrnes - maybe just for more illegible, obviously misspelt items


S.

Jellybaby1

Point taken. Much obliged.

Coolnabacky1873

Shane is correct, transcribe exactly what you see (spelling, grammar, punctuation, the whole lot) and then use square brackets for standardized spellings of place names etc..

Standardized spellings for surnames is of course a little trickier due to the variations that factors such as immigration, illiteracy etc.. throw up.

Also if what you are transcribing is from one source then one overall citation will do. But if you are transcribing from a whole range of different sources then citations for each source would be recommended.

This makes it much easier for anyone reading the transcriptions in the future to refer back to the original source, if still available.

Good luck with the project! Anyone doing genealogical research owes a debt of gratitude to transcribers as they make thing so much easier.

Jellybaby1

Thanks to Cool and the Gang!

odds_on

I have transcribed over 10,000 records for the UK FreeBMD.

As others have said, a transcription should be what you see - without interpretations.

However, many problems can arise when you can read some letters of a name, so what do you do and how can you convey that to searchers. Also, all transcribers should use the same system.

I would suggest that you check out the FreeBMD website, Transcribers page.
http://www.freebmd.org.uk/vindex.shtml

Researchers should be aware of the different possibilities of spellings that may exist in the names they are researching.

Jellybaby1

Thanks for that link odds_on. Its a bit late so I've just had a cursory look at it. I can see that the software recommended there is to speed up the process. However, as a typist who has been typing for 45 years (65-90wpm) I am a little wary of anything which enters something before I have typed it. I am old school you see.

Brennans Row

Unlawfully absenting
himself from the Complts
employment leaving his
apprentice whereby said
Complainant has sustained
Considerable loss and inconvenience
and now claims the sum
of 20/- Compensation

I'm trying to decipher the handwriting of a summons served against a relative of mine in 1872.

He was just 15 years old at the time.

Some of the text that I deciphered above was pure guess work.

Would welcome any interpretations, suggestions etc.

shanew

I think you've got it already - only suggestion I have is 2nd line - maybe the last word is Campbells ? could this be the employer in question


S.

P. Breathnach

I read "the Complt's" - the only difference being the apostrophe. I have seen "complainant" abbreviated that way in a number of court documents. I have also noticed (but not paid close attention to) a number of similar prosecutions. It reflects the apprenticeship system of the time.

In the third line I see "employment being his".

[Some younger people might not recognise that "20/-" means twenty shillings, or one pound.]

shanew

the Complt's / complainant detail makes sense - a second looks shows a likely 't' in there...


S.

Coolnabacky1873

P. Breathnach wrote: »

[Some younger people might not recognise that "20/-" means twenty shillings, or one pound.]

Don't worry P. some of us younger folk learned about that in history class and on 'Reeling in the Years' ! :D

Brennans Row

shanew wrote: »

I think you've got it already

Thanks Shane, as I need to get “many things” right as soon as possible about this particular relative.

P.Breathnach wrote: »

I have also noticed (but not paid close attention to) a number of similar prosecutions. It reflects the apprenticeship system of the time.

Thanks P. Breathnach, that's interesting to know.

P.Breathnach wrote: »

In the third line I see "employment being his".

I agree, that fits in better.

My biggest concern would be misinterpreting a word or two which could give a completely different meaning to the summons.

P.Breathnach wrote: »

Some younger people might not recognise that "20/-" means twenty shillings, or one pound.

Yep, I can remember “Decimal Day” as a kid very well, but I still remain adamant to belong to the younger people category.